Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I number the first full measure as 1, and the pickup measure doesn't have a number. I think this is how I've normally seen people numbering on this thread. Should I be numbering from the pickup measure as 1? And should we agree how we'll do it on this thread (or maybe everyone else is doing it that way already and I haven't noticed)?

You are right. I was going by the score, which measures the pickup as 1. I would never do that, but I just want to be sure we are all in the same place.

It is much more important to talk about how to play those dratted turns!!!

I sense some dissension from the troops in regards to my numbering methodology:

OK, I wasn't sure about this.

Are we good with everything that has been labeled thus far?

I will not number the leading phrases moving forward. Actually, thought I had done this correctly, at least in most cases. But in some instances I was not sure how to handle and suppose I chose the wrong guess. Sorry about this.

I sense some dissension from the troops in regards to my numbering methodology:

OK, I wasn't sure about this.

Are we good with everything that has been labeled thus far?

I will not number the leading phrases moving forward. Actually, thought I had done this correctly, at least in most cases. But in some instances I was not sure how to handle and suppose I chose the wrong guess. Sorry about this.

Greener, there is only a problem when two people have two different scores marked with different measure numbers.

You might think that any edition will number measures the same way, but that is simply not the case. Some editions will use the same measure numbers for the measures in 1st and 2nd endings, and there are other discrepancies. I was fine with you numbers, because at least there were NUMBERS!!!

OK, thanks. I kind of skipped over the Rossini part (tied up with other non-musical matters the last few days,) but will go back and take a look at this. Then, will move along with the Rondo.

Richard, wanted to ask you something. Back to Bach for a moment. I am working on Little Prelude No. 2 now -- loving it by the way, this one is about my speed for actually reading and playing at the same time , albeit slowly -- of Bach's 6 little preludes.

Question is: What is the thingy on line 3 after the repeat. Is this a partial turn? When I hear Mr. Seeman play it, it does not sound like a full turn. Also on some of the other Preludes (No.1 for example,) he completely skips over some these squiggly things, and also what looks to be a full turn in measure 4 (of No. 1.)

Of course, I can make it sound like he is, but just trying to understand what these things in the score are trying to tell me.

The squiggly thing is a short trill sign with a vertical line through it over the B in Measure 32, yes?

That's a mordent. Played BAB quickly. You might see a natural sign underneath it. A's are natural from M27 to 33.

He has a much more commodious tempo in the second one. I prefer Landowska's tempo for the first. Neither of them play the full turn in the first but Wanda adds a nice trill instead of the mordent in the second.

The squiggly thing is a short trill sign with a vertical line through it over the B in Measure 32, yes?

That's the one.

Yes, I had not listened much to Wanda previously, as I preferred the Piano version. I agree with the tempo on the first. I would also much prefer to slow the tempo a bit on the second. There are lovely harmonies that are very effective in the flowing 3 beat time signature, which I think work nicer at a slower pace. But, who am I to argue with the Pro's. Anyway will see what I think of this when I learn the whole thing.

Yes, the trill (sounds like double mordent she is using here.) Plus, she is throwing in a few extra little mordents or trills (not sure which) that are not in the score. M4 - she is using more then just the accent note here, and 2nd measure after the repeat, sounds like a mordent.

If you're going to invest time in it, you need to make it your own. You must play it like you mean it, with passion, as if you had composed it in response to your own soul.

If you speak the truth, people will overlook flaws in the delivery.

I like this answer. My thoughts exactly, but I like hearing it from you, better. And, I really like this prelude.

I shall speak the truth and there will be no flaws in delivery. With this No. 2, that is. No. 4, I'm not so sure about. Still struggling with some of the timing in the second half. More rehearsal needed.

Will get back to you on the keys. It looks like just D Major in the what I have identified as the B section, above. Need to look more at what I have called development section, as there could be a bit more at play here.

The Rondo is ostensibly a (groovy kind of) Da Capo ternary form but a (Mindbending) Rondo structure.

We're presented with the main Rondo theme in M1-16/17. We then transition via A7 to D major before the Rondo theme returns in M28/29 where it's subjected to a little variation and a coda tacked on.

The double blows that have characterised the three movements here are never far away in this double page middle section. But the triads are sparse and the harmony ambiguous. There's a V-I cadence in A at M75/76 and then we're off again into tonal ambiguity until D major appears to establish itself more as a dominant than a tonic not landing on a root position D major until M 107 (and even that is not a triad).

I want to call this an ABA piece, B being M60-114. The title being Rondo I guess B would be the D major bit at M17 and C the coda.

M60-114 is unexpectedly long without a return of the rondo theme and it's certainly treated like a development section thematically.

Good work on naming the keys, Jeff, but what's the story with Prelude 4 specifically?

Challenges are: In the A section, the descending runs -- M8-M9, and again at M10-M11 --; getting these to come even to tempo without rushing is a challenge. I'm doing a much better job with it now and not so worried about it. But, still having an issue with landing on the LH 3rd at the beginning of M10. Not sure why. When I try with all my might to play it softly, I don't hear both notes. Else, there is too much emphasis. I tend to think this is an acoustic adjustment issue, and I would not have this problem with a digital piano. Or, perhaps this is just my excuse. Again though, this is not that big of concern. Bigger concern ahead ...

In section B; I am playing the entire piece close to a presentation tempo that I am happy with now. But, M38 and M40 are throwing out the tempo every time, and the transition back to M41 is not so seamless. Not sure if I am hearing these measures right, and may need to go back to the recordings. Or, perhaps I should try a metronome? I have never used one, but could give it a go.

I think these pieces are excellent for where I'm at in my learning -- both for technical playing ability, and for strengthening my reading (more so No. 2 for the later,) plus I love the harmonies and Bach in general -- and, want to get them as good as I possibly can. These are the areas I am struggling with most at the moment.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Thanks, Richard.

I will prepare the numbering for Sonatine No. 6 now and will post a little later.

These areas all have one thing in common; controlling the fingers, particularly the weaker ones - it's not about strength, it's about control. You need to practise controlling them every day.

Hanon provides the sort of exercise they need but not the system. Do exercise 21 at a steady even tempo about the same speed as you intend to do this prelude. One octave up and down is sufficient. When you're comfortable with it do it in dotted rhythm. When you're comfortable with that you need a way to control the fingers without letting them fly. Do Ex. 21 in the RH and Ex. # 1 in LH (at half the speed). One octave up and down for 7 to 10 days then see if it's made a difference in the prelude.If you take to it easily use a different Ex. from Hanon Vol. 1. in LH. Keep the brain engaged and you won't find it boring.

Practise M8 - M11 separately from the rest and also 38-40. Do them half tempo until they're flawless, then up to tempo, then put the parts back together. Emphasise the accents.

If you don't have a metronome count out loud not mentally. It's easier to keep time with a physical action.

M10 - go slow enough that you can put your finger on the F# before you play it and try to use a stroking motion. There are two accents in each bar, point them.

M39 - squeeze the upper G, don't bang it. Play these upper notes like a violin or flute and the lower ones like a 'cello or clarinet.

Don't consider speed until the delivery is flawless. This isn't pizza. Quality is more important than delivery time.

I'm getting lost. A few days ago PianoStudent88 said she was still working on Sonatina 4 and needed to backtrack to it before getting to Air Suisse. Then Richard wrote that "we" are finished with Air Suisse, and now we are on to number 6? I just looked back umpteen pages. I don't believe that the group has completed all of these sonatinas. In fact, the only people left are Greener, Richard, P88, Gary and myself. Unless P88 has caught up, then we are not finished previous pieces. I am still catching up to 3, 4, and Suisse.

I'm reading about a rondo (also apparently finished), and a prelude 4. Rondo of which sonatina? Does the rondo have a prelude, or is this prelude 4 of something else? We did a Chopin prelude 4 a while back - is that the one? I am lost and falling ever further behind. Is there a point in discussing any of the sonatinas that you guys have already finished? Am I the only one? Where is everybody else?

I was interested in the sonatinas I haven't done yet, but I don't know if there is a point if they are considered already done. Nobody will want to discuss what has been discussed and "done".

I'm getting lost. A few days ago PianoStudent88 said she was still working on Sonatina 4 and needed to backtrack to it before getting to Air Suisse. Then Richard wrote that "we" are finished with Air Suisse, and now we are on to number 6? I just looked back umpteen pages. I don't believe that the group has completed all of these sonatinas. In fact, the only people left are Greener, Richard, P88, Gary and myself. Unless P88 has caught up, then we are not finished previous pieces. I am still catching up to 3, 4, and Suisse.

Sorry for the confusion KS. If you look back to October 1 at 10:23 AM EDT, this is where we started No. 5. We did all the movements, but intermixed with several other theory lessons and discussion. Yes, including PS88 wanted to go back to No. 4 and discussion continued there for a bit.

Meanwhile, I was chomping at the bit on No. 5 and when I got the green light, we progressed through Air Suisse (not a great deal of discussion on this one) and then Rondo, just yesterday. So, now I have posted No 6.

Will await your, or consensus approval to proceed. And, happy to further discuss, any up to No. 5 until everyone is comfortable with these analysis to date.

I'm reading about a rondo (also apparently finished), and a prelude 4.

Prelude No. 4 was my little diversion to ask Richard for some help. So, sorry about this, it is not thread related, but I thought easier to ask here. But, will not continue here (that is, after this note .)

Originally Posted By: zrtf90

Hanon provides the sort of exercise they need but not the system. Do exercise 21 at a steady even tempo about the same speed as you intend to do this prelude. One octave up and down is sufficient. When you're comfortable with it do it in dotted rhythm. When you're comfortable with that you need a way to control the fingers without letting them fly. Do Ex. 21 in the RH and Ex. # 1 in LH (at half the speed). One octave up and down for 7 to 10 days then see if it's made a difference in the prelude.If you take to it easily use a different Ex. from Hanon Vol. 1. in LH. Keep the brain engaged and you won't find it boring.

Thanks, Richard. Yes, keen to give this a try. Will I find this "Hanon exercises" online somewhere?

We're always ready to discuss what's gone before but some of us may be able to discuss it with a greater familiarity.

The prelude was a backtrack to Bach.

Join in wherever you are, keystring. The pieces don't go out of date. If you're reading the whole thread post from wherever you are. If you're only reading from the current page post on where you're at in the sonatinas. There are aspects we can't have covered given the time we've spent (or not spent!) on each bit and it does no harm to say the same thing again though you're more likely to add a new slant.

I am always happy to backtrack and talk about something that went earlier. To me "done" means "I've said/asked everything I can think of, but I'm always open to new insights, and even to re-covering the same material."

I've said everything I need to say/ask on Sonatina 4.

I'm not quite done with Sonatina 5. I dived into the Movement 2 Air Suisse and have said/asked everything I needed to say/ask with it, but I haven't actually done Movement 1 (or Movement 3), and I would like to.

Can we hold off on Sonatina 6 until I catch up on Sonatina 5?

I would like to be able to be fully engaged in Sonatina 6 at the same time as the main discussion is happening, but I'd really like another day to catch up on #5 before diving into #6.

keystring and Gary, would it be OK for you to just do a "reset" and join back in on Sonatina 6 when we get to it in a day or two (assuming that my request to wait till I'm done with #5 is accepted)? Not that there's any obligation of course for you to join in at any level, but I think you both add a lot to the thread.

keystring, the Preludes that Greener has brought up are from the Bach Six Little Preludes. Greener started working on them when we had the (now-abandoned) binary form thread. They're not connected to the subject of this thread, and I think just came up as a quick comment from Greener, and then that side topic unexpectedly grew into several posts.

Is there some better way for us to regulate the pace of the thread, or to make clearer what we're talking about?

I don't want us to say "no we won't go back and discuss previous material." Unfortunately, revisiting previous material does bring the possibility of confusion when renewed conversations about previous material intermingle with current conversations about the latest material.

Is there some way we can reduce the confusion? Should we be doing more of a check-in before proceeding to a new movement, and waiting longer to hear from some larger core of people before proceeding? And who should be in that core?

I'm not quite done with Sonatina 5. I dived into the Movement 2 Air Suisse and have said/asked everything I needed to say/ask with it, but I haven't actually done Movement 1 (or Movement 3), and I would like to.

Can we hold off on Sonatina 6 until I catch up on Sonatina 5?

I would like to be able to be fully engaged in Sonatina 6 at the same time as the main discussion is happening, but I'd really like another day to catch up on #5 before diving into #6.

Has anyone any experience of threads that rely on such participation and how they manage?

It would seem reasonable to allow a certain passage of time for each sonata/sontina, perhaps we could do one per week and those with more time can do all the movements and those with less can just do one movement.

Any other ideas (apart from getting Greener to do a large symphony between movements)?

People are going to go at different speeds. What would be very helpful is to always name which sonata is being referred to. So not "the rondo" but "the rondo in S. 5". Not m. 23, but "m. 23, rondo (or movement x), S. 4". You are already open to the idea that some of us will be discussing sonatas that others have already finished. That is necessary and is already happening. I freelance with an uneven workload so I tend to do things in lurches.